RE: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion

It depends what you mean 'they don't work'.
 
Absent a technology demonstrably causing the machine to ignite vaporizing the user instantly I don't think that we are going to obtain objective measures from lab tests.
 
Certainly we can determine which factors are in operation, but we simply cannot expect to predict which factors will be dominant.

________________________________

From: Serge Egelman [mailto:egelman@cs.cmu.edu]
Sent: Tue 13/11/2007 11:23 AM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: Ian Fette; W3C WSC Public
Subject: Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion



This is irrelevant for our purposes.  If we test them and find that in a
perfect world they don't work, then this is moot.  If we test them and
find that they're effective, then we make a recommendation, and it's out
of our hands.  At that point the application vendors aren't in compliance.

serge

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> I have never had the slightest difficulty selling the idea of logotypes
> to customers. The problem is purely on the application side. The logos
> have no value unless they are displayed.
> 
> So we risk a chicken and egg situation where the application side people
> refuse to do anything about implementation until they are assured that
> there will be 100% adoption by the site owners which is not going to
> happen until there are applications to present the logos.
> 
> Someone has to make the first move, we cannot gate the scope of what we
> will consider by requiring an assurance of total adoption by any market
> participant.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org on behalf of Ian Fette
> *Sent:* Fri 09/11/2007 4:49 PM
> *To:* W3C WSC Public
> *Subject:* ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion
>
> This action (ACTION-335) was to provide discussion topics for ISSUE-96.
> I only really have one point, and I will try to state it more clearly
> than at the meeting.
>
> To me, the effectiveness of any of the logotype proposals (or the EV
> proposals, for that matter) depends greatly upon the adoption of these
> technologies by sites. We can do really cool flashy things when we get
> an EV cert, or an EV-cert with a logo, but right now the only two sites
> I can find using an EV cert are PayPal and VeriSign. Therefore, I wonder
> how habituated people would become in practice, if they never (or
> rarely) saw the EV/logotype interface stuff in use.
>
> My proposal is that any usability testing of the EV and/or logotype
> things in the spec not only reflect how users would behave in a land
> where everyone is using EV-certs and life is happy, but rather also test
> a more realistic case. That is, look at what the adoption is presently
> and/or what we can reasonably expect it to be at time of last call, and
> do usability testing in an environment that reflects that adoption rate
> - i.e. some percentage of sites using EV certs, some percentage also
> using logos, and another percentage still using "normal" SSL certs. My
> worry is that we may be thinking "EV certs will solve X,Y, and Z", but
> that may only be the case if users are used to seeing them on the
> majority of sites, and should that not end up being the case, we need to
> look at the usability and benefit in that scenario as well.
>
> I think this is what the ACTION wanted, i.e. for me to state this point
> more explicitly. I am going to therefore assume that my work on this
> action is complete, unless I hear otherwise.
>
> -Ian

--
/*
PhD Candidate
Vice President for External Affairs, Graduate Student Assembly
Carnegie Mellon University

Legislative Concerns Chair
National Association of Graduate-Professional Students
*/